Notwithstanding explanations by members of the government's negotiating team, the Committee is reluctant to accept that suppliers whose intentions are honourable, would refuse to agree to guarantees of more than 10%. Given that these are essentially business arrangements that are only as good as their viability, two questions arise: Firstly, does the resistance to a higher than 10% guarantee (which need not be limited to bank type guarantees) suggest a lack of confidence in the business viability of the offsets proposed? Secondly, if these business deals are sufficiently competitive to be viable, why then are they only explored via arms procurement deals?